Question regarding downsizing

[Michele 1]

O.K., so I read as much as possible, and absorb advice as best I can. I understand the importance of low flat turns, etc. that Bill V makes sure is available to us all. I was thinking about the recent downsizing experiences with Viking and, I believe, an injury because of a downsizing experience with Dropdeded (I think it was he...if not, I apologize). Both were unable to make it to the landing area they had planned on - Viking crashed but walked away, and Dropdeded was not able to walk away... I am sure there are a ton of factors, but there is a commonality therein: both didn't estimate accurately something which may have been a "first link".

We hear all sorts of good advice - it'll turn faster, practice high, flare up top, etc. whenever someone is going to be under a new/smaller canopy. And I agree - land out rather than turn low. But the question I have is: why does no one speak of the faster decent rate and subsequent need to alter previously successful landing patterns? I mean, obviously, you have less fabric over your head. You will be dropping a bit faster (or a lot faster, depending on the canopy change). But how much of a factor is this when planning your landing and approach? And do people take this into consideration?

I am asking because I am gonna try my "new-to-me" canopy next time I jump (whenever that is). It's only one size smaller than I have now, and I have landed the one I jumped last year nicely, but I am still apprehensive and just trying to think it all through.

Any thoughts?

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[weid14 0]

why the need to alter the pattern? except maybe vertically a bit. the canopy is going to fly faster -- in all directions, so you should be able to use the same references if you're doing the traditional downwind-base-final approach, with a faster decent rate, enter the pattern a bit higher, that's all. as you get to know a canopy it is all about intuition, it does take a few jumps, and you may land past your intended target if you start to high, but that is better than starting to low, start higher, work down but use the same approach. give it a try.

[rgoper 0]

Michelle:

make your usaul ground wind direction observations, then do a hop-n-pop first couple of flights. practice up at around 4K-5K whatever you can get, have fun, and you'll have a great spot, and the landing area to yourself! practice rear riser turns, toggle turns, the sky is yours!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Cornholio 0]

Quote

why the need to alter the pattern?

and

Quote

enter the pattern a bit higher, that's all

Sounds to me you just answered Micheles question and you also contradicted yourself.

For me, I did have to alter my landing pattern. I went from a PD210 to a Spectre190. I noticed right away that the vertical descent and forward speed was greater than the PD210.

I've got about 40 jumps on the Spectre and I still sometimes have problems judging my landing pattern. Lummy can attest to this when he followed me in one time at Perris and I landed quite a ways away (short) from my intended landing spot. I told him that I was afraid of running over the runway or edge of the grass. I said "next time I'm aiming for the edge of the grass" and I landed right in the middle.

The landing technique itself is about the same - you are correct. However the landing PATTERN sequence is a bit different. You should start a bit higher and maybe increase those legs of the landing pattern since you are now starting to descend a lot faster than the relative speed moving forward.

Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast!
Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool!
bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump

[cloud9 0]

actually you should land long not short. The smaller canopy at the higher wing loading will penetrate the wind better. It does desend a little quicker but the forward speed makes up for that plus some. Of course if you go from a 9 cell to a 7 cell then things change even more. But for the most part when you down size you should find yourself going a little long not short. Wing loading is a factor this may not be the case at high wing loadings. When I downsized from a Triathlon 175 to a Hornet 150 I was landing long every jump for about the first 10 or so until I got used to that much more speed and glide.

[quade 4]

Michele --

If the ONLY thing you were to do was to change the wingloading, then although the decent rate and forward speed would be both increase, the actual glide ratio would remain almost exactly the same. Meaning almost the exact same reference points for landing pattern could be used with almost the exact same results.

Changing canopy makes and models could change the glide ratio quite a bit. For instance, changing from a dogged out PD-260 to a freshly manufactured Sabre2 210 could give you a considerable change in your glide ratio. However, my guess is that even in this case the difference would not be so great that you'd need more than a couple of jumps to dial in a decent A-license quality of accuracy. In other words, you should still be able to hit that big o' student circle with no problem due to the canopy change.

But, um, if you couldn't do it before the canopy change, well, changing things isn't going to make it any easier!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Michele, darlin, hold my hand.

You're overthinking this.

It's fun. Say it with me. Funfunfun.

You've been jumping pretty tired student stuff, and now you're gonna have your very own canopy, and you're gonna get better and better because it will be the same stuff every time.

Remember to keep flying your landings, you're not done until the canopy is deflated on the ground. Never reach for the ground when you've got a toggle in your hand. Flare before you hit the ground. Learn from your experience.

Remember that it's fun. Funfunfun.

JP

• Quote

[weid14 0]

not a contradiction, you don't alter the pattern looking "down" on it (looks like the same "U"). think about it for a second, you can go 40 mph down wind, and also 40 mph back into the wind (on base, so it's relative, same as if you're going 20 mph down and 20 mph back they cancel each other out. the rate of descent might be a little higher, so you might start a hair higher. read Paul's post, he's better at writing explanations than I am.

[fudd 0]

A different canopy will have a different glide ratio. However, when you speak of landing pattern, it shouldn't be that much difference. Do you get confused about the landingpattern in high or no wind conditions? I think the wind will affect how long/short you get a lot more than the canopy.
Learn to fly the aproach to the landing area without your altimeter if you're still using that. Learn to spot where you are going to land if you keep your current heading. (Find the spot on the ground that stands still)
Learn howto adjust how far you will get with front and back risers. Learn flat turns and how much altitude you lose in normal turns.
And of course, don't do radical low turns!
These are important skills to master. I'm a low time jumper to, but this is some of the things I focus on.
Lately, I've been playing a bit with pulling left front riser and right back riser. This increase my decent rate, so I go shorter without increasing the speed like pulling the front risers. A little strange techniq that adds to my canopy skills.
However, the biggest difference with another canopy probably is going to be how it flares. I remember going from 240's to 220 and 190's canopy. That was when I learned howto flare properly. However, that's not such a big deal as long as you remember to do a plf if you mess up you're flare.
Ok, that's all the wisdome from my 75-jump-long-experience...

• Quote

[Cornholio 0]

You are correct, except for one difference...

I was re-reading all the posts and the landing pattern, "the 'U'" is the same, however, the technique is a bit different. I can understand Paul's statement about the glide ratio being the same, but the distance vs speed vs altitude is a factor. However let me explain this a bit further by an example...

If I start flying downwind in my U pattern at 1000' at entry point I will reach point A at 500' and point B' at 300' and land at C. However, if I am flying a faster, more ground hungry canopy, I start my landing pattern at 1000' at the same entry point as before, then I will arrive at point A at 400', point B at 200', and land 100' short of point C. So to fix this problem, either shorten the legs or start the landing pattern higher.

Am I the only one that notices this ? Maybe my experience was that the glide ratio was not the same between the two canopies I have flown. I think the PD210 had less vertical speed, so it appeared that the glide ratio was different.

Anyhow, my point was just my own experience. From jumping a PD210 and overshooting the landing, and then a Spectre190 that usually comes up short. Both of these observations were from a typical 0-wind day.

Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast!
Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool!
bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump

[quade 4]

Quote

Anyhow, my point was just my own experience. From jumping a PD210 and overshooting the landing, and then a Spectre190 that usually comes up short.

Just a point of clarification here. These are two different canopies. Nobody should expect them to behave the same.

That said, to characterize a lightly loaded (or even a moderately loaded) Spectre as "ground hungry" compared to a PD-210 is not only subjective, but I think fairly inaccurate.

I jump a Spectre 190 loaded at about 1.25:1. I believe it's glide ratio (the amount for forward motion over verticle motion) compares quite well with most seven cell canopies and even some nine cells.

Of course, this is only based on about 1100 jumps on one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[weid14 0]

was it a ragged out PD? if so it probably had a hefty amount of sink to glide ratio

• Quote

[Michele 1]

*****[holding my head and muttering "funfunfunfunfunfunfun"]*****

Cornholio understood my rambling question, which, upon rereading, is very poorly phrased. Lemme see if I can explain my q this way:

(Two notes: the canopy I have been jumping for the last 15 jumps has been the same one, and it has about 350 total jumps on it, with a new brake line set last time. Second, I am simply changing sizes, rather than styles or material. I am sticking with the Spectre, just one single size smaller than what I've been jumping.)

In high winds, I know that I will basically have a harder time once I start my final leg getting much forward ground coverage. I basically come pretty quickly down. In no winds, I know that my final leg needs to be started out farther, because I have nothing slowing my forward motion, and so will go long if I start it where I usually do. So I know that each time I jump, I must understand wind strength, as well as direction.

Now, if I am in a smaller canopy, I am decending faster than if I was in a larger one. If I am decending faster, doesn't it stand to reason that I will not be able to use past ground markers as accurately as before, because what worked at the point where I used to turn for my final leg will no longer work as accurately as now, because the descent ratio is higher (i.e. faster drop rate)? In other words, if I used to turn at point A, shouldn't I turn a little closer than point A to make it to where I usually land, to compensate for the slightly faster drop rate?

Or am I just being really, really dumb?

(and no, Quade, I know it won't magically make me a better lander. That will come with experience and the canopy control class. LOL!!!)

Thanks, guys, for all the responses. I just wish I understood them.

*****[holding head, muttering funfunfunfunfunfunfunfun]*****
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[quade 4]

You will be decending faster, but you'll also be going forward faster. In the instance you've just described all you'll be doing is increasing the wingloading. The glide ratio and therefore the landmarks you're using should remain essentially the same. I doubt it would be possible for anyone to actually measure the difference in the key, base or final turn points for a basic accuracy landing on the "old larger" canopy versus the "new one size smaller" one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

I jump a Spectre 190 loaded at about 1.25:1. I believe it's glide ratio (the amount for forward motion over verticle motion) compares quite well with most seven cell canopies and even some nine cells.

Of course, this is only based on about 1100 jumps on one.

It would be very interesting for us to learn more from your broad CFI experience.

I -know- Square One would let you demo many different canopies. You can even get large canopies the same size as the Spectre you currently own. Start with a Sabre2?

Like the different airplanes you've piloted and completely understood, you could give us some real objective data on different makes of canopies! Perhaps use your GPS and ProTrack data?

Maybe the manufacturers would sponsor you?

I'm serious. I really think this would be cool!

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[quade 4]

Quote

Maybe the manufacturers would sponsor you?

That's about the ONLY way that would happen. As big of a geek as I am, I can't even imagine doing -that- much work for free.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I understand the importance of low flat turns, etc.

You understand the importance... but can you DO all the things Bill mentions under the canopy you've been jumping?

I've landed my new Spectre loaded at 1.0 standing up on all but one of the 15 + jumps I've put on it. That must mean I'm ready to downsize, right? Noooo.... All that means is I'm getting a bit better at landing it. I am not confident that I could stand up a downwind landing under it. I haven't practiced flat turns nearly enough, and I haven't done many flare turns at all. And I really need to play with the risers more, both front and rear.

How many times have you stood up the landing on the canopy you've been renting (which, if I remember right, you load at just under 1.0)? How many times have you practiced flat turns? Done any front riser turns lately? Tried flaring (up high of course) with the rear risers? Would you be comfortable landing the canopy you've been flying downwind??

Quote

I am asking because I am gonna try my "new-to-me" canopy next time I jump (whenever that is). It's only one size smaller than I have now

First, what's the rush? I understand that you'll save a few bucks by jumping your own main, but renting is far cheaper than a broken bone.

Second, the time to downsize is when you're really current, not when you're coming back off a three, four, five week or more break.

Take the canopy control course before jumping your "new" main. Please.

[billvon 2,990]

>The glide ratio and therefore the landmarks you're using should
> remain essentially the same.

While I agree in principal, the perceived glide ratio will change quite a bit. A Spectre 230 on final will have a very steep perceived glide in a 10mph wind; a Sabre2 120 will have a much flatter glide. (The opposite, of course, happens when flying downwind.) The actual glide relative to the air mass will not change much, of course, but compared to the ground, the angle will change quite a bit.

This, I think, is the primary change (in addition to the faster speeds, of course.) You have to plan for a much steeper approach on a larger canopy in everything but calm conditions, even though your glide seems flatter when flying downwind.

[billvon 2,990]

>why does no one speak of the faster decent rate and subsequent
>need to alter previously successful landing patterns?

I tend to divide landings into three general areas - after opening, in the pattern, and the last 50-100 feet. Different techniques are required for each, and I tend to concentrate on the last 100 feet since that's where I see most accidents happen. This might be foolish of me; sort of like claiming there's never a problem in a skydive until you actually hit the ground.

In any case, the biggest difference that I see is that a smaller canopy is less affected by winds. A big canopy doesn't lose much altitude during the downwind leg (i.e. has a flat glide compared to the ground) and loses most of its altitude during final (i.e. has a very steep glide.) This isn't due to its actual glide angle; it has to do with how a given glide is perceived relative to the ground. If you use the same visual cues on a smaller canopy, you will tend to overshoot your target, since you will see a steeper glide during downwind and flatter glide on final.

There are two ways around this. The first is just experience setting up the pattern based on the speed and glide angle of the parachute; I don't know of any hard and fast formula to help there. The second concerns tricks to lose altitude. S-turns are a good way; as long as you can flat turn if you make the final one too low, they are a good way to lose altitude in a difficult situation, or if you're landing away from the main pattern. (They're discouraged in a busy pattern since it's dangerous to overfly someone doing big S-turns.)

It should be noted that, if there is no wind, the glide angle for a Spectre 210 will be quite similar to that of a Spectre 135, so all your turns can happen at the same place on both canopies. However, everything will happen a lot faster. What this means is that you have to rely more on absolute altitudes than on timings, and you have to wean yourself of using speed over the ground to judge your altitude (which is a very common way to judge altitude.)

[quade 4]

Quote

A Spectre 230 on final will have a very steep perceived glide in a 10mph wind; a Sabre2 120 will have a much flatter glide.

And the difference between a Spectre 230 and a Spectre 210?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>And the difference between a Spectre 230 and a Spectre 210?

Depends on the wind. In no winds, not much difference at all. In light winds, not too much. But if the 230 has a forward speed of 15mph, and the 210 has a forward speed of 18mph, and the winds are 12 - the 230 will seem to have a much, much steeper glide angle (i.e. the vertical speeds will be similar but the horizontal ground speed on the 210 will be twice that of the 230.)

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . if the 230 has a forward speed of 15mph, and the 210 has a forward speed of 18mph . . .

Crap. Now I'm almost going to be forced to do some real-world flight testing of the kind suggested by Lori. I don't think the difference in hands-off trim speed is quite as great as you've suggested (3 mph), but I have nothing to back that up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>Now I'm almost going to be forced to do some real-world flight
> testing of the kind suggested by Lori.

Do you have an airspeed indicator handy? GPS is going to be questionable due to changing windspeeds as you descend. Maybe someone at the ultralight park would be willing to lend you one, or perhaps Pat doesn't need the airspeed indicator out of the Skyvan . . .

[PhreeZone 20]

Jump sumething like this Hand held wind speed indicator.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 4]

I was thinking of something like a Kestral held up in front of a video camera. If I wanted to get really fancy I'd build a bracket I could attach after deployment and that would allow me to do some maneuvers as well as annotate what I was doing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver